Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50670
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=We2nNfBeXxBta/i9MBo0Rh7+Zh0AesdbrWysiUEaKngz7Ws0vLlkvHJ7DhUwtpfIwe
         El8Vv1d78PL49PSnB8p8iiiZudrtKyaJfd0i9wfq2O8L0dwM62GoXwvu/IJVeZH+DIue
         v8qtj9DO1j/37smKqvGX8XHhXkq/UzZ1wHob4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dallasg@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim3OeYZ4NFj4t=bCoitmgQYoCEh6mSs30hWQUp2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
	<AANLkTinp+QsgqM7rRUcC-RmrMYbgxQHc+DBiPUUxvq_y@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.vmvy9m0kidpuyk@cataphract>
	<4CF27AAC.9010704@divbyzero.net>
	<AANLkTikngNK=OaQEjW4TLna8jUhYitdQQW3aJPLEg9AC@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF28CFC.2060204@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim3OeYZ4NFj4t=bCoitmgQYoCEh6mSs30hWQUp2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:29:02 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikv4HcDb0oxZfawNun6k_CWHfDVhD+wR8mk85jH@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel_Gonz=E1lez?= <keisial@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630e869a6f42b0496204acd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: dallas@gutauckis.com (Dallas Gutauckis)

--00163630e869a6f42b0496204acd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh, and I haven't +1 or -1'd.

I write in many languages, some of which don't have method keywords (like
Java: public void doSomething()) and some of which do (like PHP: public
function doSomething()). I trip up whenever I switch between languages, and
it's in both directions.

Ultimately, I feel the keyword is rather useless from a readability
standpoint. The only advantage is for searching (again, moreso on functions
than methods) but still, the argument is there.

2010/11/28 Dallas Gutauckis <dallas@gutauckis.com>

>
>
> 2010/11/28 =C1ngel Gonz=E1lez <keisial@gmail.com>
>
> Dallas Gutauckis wrote:
>> > Just to be clear, this works on the assumption that we don't know the
>> class
>> > name that the function resides in?
>> >
>> > I understand the search argument, but to me it only applies to
>> functions,
>> > not methods. Is anyone arguing for removing the T_FUNCTION requirement
>> on
>> > functions?
>>
>> Even knowing the class you are calling, and assuming the common
>> convention of
>> one file per class, you may not know in which file is it implemented.
>> It's annoying
>> to go into the class, find out it's not there, grep the parent class,
>> and having to
>> repeat the process three or four levels up.
>> Whereas with a unique enough name, grepping the functions get all the
>> possible
>> implementations.
>>
>> Plus, it's not always easy to know in which class to look something :-)
>>
>>
> I understand the concern from above, but I don't agree with it
> fundamentally. The kind of practice suggested by this search mechanic tel=
ls
> me that either there is lack of or little documentation, and lack of or
> little understanding of the codebase in which the code resides thereby
> making this argument flawed based solely on the assumption that the major=
ity
> of code is (or should be) poorly maintained/documented.
>
> Below is simply bad programming practice in many ways. No validation of
> type (neither through type-hinting nor an instanceof check) is done, whic=
h
> is why the code is so difficult to trace back. Presumably, you'd also hav=
e
> some form of documentation (PHPDoc, anyone?) that would facilitate the
> search for the declaration of that function. Again, that assumes a better
> programming practice than is being provided as the example below. One wou=
ld
> hope that someone excluding their function keyword would also be "up to
> date" enough to be validating objects.
>
>
>> function baz( $param ) {
>>    $param->morlocks();
>> }
>>
>>
>

--00163630e869a6f42b0496204acd--